Good or Bad Philology
A few years ago (1993), under the direction of my friend Keith Busby, a slim volume entitled Towards a Synthesis, Essays on the New Philology appeared at Rodopi. Judging from the sales record, the book’s echo was very limited (it may even be considered a total flop), and it may be imprudent for me to revive a polemic about problems that seem to have died down on their own, hence giving them a resonance that they don’t deserve. But let’s forge ahead, at the risk of making a success out of Towards a Synthesis.
I won’t answer for my colleagues and friends Gene Vance, R. Howard Bloch, Steve Nichols Jr. and Bernard Cerquiglini who are also taken to task in this collection of articles and lectures: they are big boys and can fend for themselves if they so wish.
Keith Busby attacks me (p. 86-87) because he doesn’t like the tone of a review I wrote on a book by Pierre Gallais (Speculum, 66, 1991, 408-10). If he was offended by it, I do apologize. I would like to underline that none of the interpretations and judgments I present, none of the fundamental issues I raise in the review are discussed by Busby – only my politeness is impugned. If we reduce intellectual discussion to a matter of manners, soon there will be no one left in the room to debate with. But let me repeat, I promise to make an effort and watch my attitude.
I will quickly pass over R.T. Pickens’ attack on Barbarolexis (p. 83). The polemical misreading is here so deep it would take a lot of time to redress. Let me just say that I don’t consider myself part of a mythical group called the “New Philologists” (I just think they are good and bad readers) nor do I explicitly or implicitly believe for one second that “text-centered, language-based readings have sucked out the life of medieval literature”, as Pickens asserts. Quite to the contrary, in fact, but that would be a long story.
But these égratignages or épinglages are just the overture, the prelude to the main aria by the diva: a nasty attack (p. 106-110), written by Barbara N. Sargent-Baur, against one of my articles (“Raoul de Cambrai: The Illegitimacy of Writing”, in Brownlee, Brownlee and Nichols, Eds., The New Medievalism, reprinted from the Romanic Review, 79, 1 (1988). Like all good philologists, you should pay attention to little details: this “reprinted” will indeed acquire a certain importance below.
Barbara N. Sargent-Baur’s criticism is two pronged: she doesn’t agree with certain of my readings, and she accuses me of not knowing Old French. On the first front, there is indeed such a huge gap in our mentalities, methods, and theories that no amount of discussion can possibly fill it. Schematically, I will say that Sargent-Baur considers criticism legitimate only if it satisfies itself with a literal retelling of the story in the book, enlightened perhaps and solidified by some historical references. She basically doesn’t believe (and cannot stand those who believe) that a literary text can have symbolic aspects beyond this literal meaning. No amount of give and take could lead us here “towards a synthesis” (like the editors do –not – hope), so let us run the risk of frustrating our readers and leave it at that.
Now, on to the criticism leveled at my Old French knowledge and my supposed lack of formal training in it. Well, I received formal training in Romance philology at the University of Geneva, under the guidance of Professor Burger, and I remember a great deal of it. Also, I am not one to say good riddance to a solid philological background as a first step towards a good reading: I think philology is indispensable – only its use is debatable, inasmuch as I don’t think it should be viewed as tool to reduce interpretation to univocity, monosemantism, a singular meaning.
But let us go into details: Barbara N. Sargent-Baur did commit a capital philological error, an error blindly repeated by Philippe Ménard who basically translated her article (or had it translated by a graduate student), and then turned around, presented it as coming from his fecund mind, and published it in an obscure German journal.
Indeed, the article in the book edited by Brownlee, Brownlee and Nichols was not reprinted from Romanic Review, it was translated from French for publication in book form. Let me hasten to note that I didn’t proofread the original article in French (due to strict deadlines, the proofreading step was bypassed), nor did I proofread the English translation (that was obviously a task for the translator). This said, the translator did not do nearly as bad a job as Sargent-Baur (may I call you Barbara?) thinks. They are some some details that I would change, but they are very few if measured against the whole of what is overall a fine job.
But my main point is that I did not write the translations, good or bad. This point could have been easily verified by Barbara, who could also have also checked my thoughts against the original, if not proofread, French version in Romanic Review. An easy task if she has good in modern French as she thinks she is in Old French, a crucial philological step she neglected, which calls into question her entire attack on my poor little article.
My dear Barbara, Dante certainly would have put you in one of the circles of his Hell, but I am charitable; so let’s forget and forgive this whole lamentable episode. It is less easy to pardon Keith Busby, who has always (outwardly) professed the deepest friendship and admiration towards me. Why did you publish such weak and inaccurate trash, Keith? But here again, time will heal all the wounds…
May 21, 2001
Contact Alexandre | © Alexandre Leupin
2004
